Again Gary - If its such shit-hot science, why are you here trolling things up here rather than participating in real scientific venues?

Such as?

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,11:41)

Actually, why do you have a long history of trolling venues *like* this?

For years my home was the Kansas Citizens For Science forum. The public hearing controversy attracted professors who wanted to help resolve the conflict. It was the place to be. But with all later going surprisingly well in Kansas, the scientists eventually went back to their usual science work. The forum was later archived/closed which was a shock to me, but in this case it was much because of mission accomplished.

I was like lost without a forum home. And since this is another for ending the ID controversy, if things go as well here then this forum will eventually end along with it. Not be needed anymore. Which is a good thing, not bad thing.

Gary, I hate to piss on your cornflakes, but we've got a *lousy* track record as an incubator for paradigm changing scientific discoveries. We're almost as bad as "Planet Source Code" in that regard. We really good at pointing and laughing at trolls, shitty science and religion pretending to be science, hence your current Butthurt.

Now it appears you have it in for science as it currently exists, with its falsification, making predictions, peer review, etc.

That would make this the worst venue for you, as we're just going to laugh at you even more. So keep writing VB that gets 5 stars, by all means, but we're just going to laugh at you and science doesn't care about you because you're not saying anything scientific. And if you think the rest of the world will change it's definition to meet your's through posting here, you're more tragic than I thought.

Again Gary - If its such shit-hot science, why are you here trolling things up here rather than participating in real scientific venues?

Such as?

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,11:41)

Actually, why do you have a long history of trolling venues *like* this?

For years my home was the Kansas Citizens For Science forum. The public hearing controversy attracted professors who wanted to help resolve the conflict. It was the place to be. But with all later going surprisingly well in Kansas, the scientists eventually went back to their usual science work. The forum was later archived/closed which was a shock to me, but in this case it was much because of mission accomplished.

I was like lost without a forum home. And since this is another for ending the ID controversy, if things go as well here then this forum will eventually end along with it. Not be needed anymore. Which is a good thing, not bad thing.

Gary, I hate to piss on your cornflakes, but we've got a *lousy* track record as an incubator for paradigm changing scientific discoveries. We're almost as bad as "Planet Source Code" in that regard. We really good at pointing and laughing at trolls, shitty science and religion pretending to be science, hence your current Butthurt.

Now it appears you have it in for science as it currently exists, with its falsification, making predictions, peer review, etc.

That would make this the worst venue for you, as we're just going to laugh at you even more. So keep writing VB that gets 5 stars, by all means, but we're just going to laugh at you and science doesn't care about you because you're not saying anything scientific. And if you think the rest of the world will change it's definition to meet your's through posting here, you're more tragic than I thought.

Gary. ^ This ^.

From looking at what you need, you already did a fantastic job explaining why this forum has a *lousy* track record as an incubator for paradigm changing scientific discoveries. What more could you add?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Again Gary - If its such shit-hot science, why are you here trolling things up here rather than participating in real scientific venues?

Such as?

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,11:41)

Actually, why do you have a long history of trolling venues *like* this?

For years my home was the Kansas Citizens For Science forum. The public hearing controversy attracted professors who wanted to help resolve the conflict. It was the place to be. But with all later going surprisingly well in Kansas, the scientists eventually went back to their usual science work. The forum was later archived/closed which was a shock to me, but in this case it was much because of mission accomplished.

I was like lost without a forum home. And since this is another for ending the ID controversy, if things go as well here then this forum will eventually end along with it. Not be needed anymore. Which is a good thing, not bad thing.

Gary, I hate to piss on your cornflakes, but we've got a *lousy* track record as an incubator for paradigm changing scientific discoveries. We're almost as bad as "Planet Source Code" in that regard. We really good at pointing and laughing at trolls, shitty science and religion pretending to be science, hence your current Butthurt.

Now it appears you have it in for science as it currently exists, with its falsification, making predictions, peer review, etc.

That would make this the worst venue for you, as we're just going to laugh at you even more. So keep writing VB that gets 5 stars, by all means, but we're just going to laugh at you and science doesn't care about you because you're not saying anything scientific. And if you think the rest of the world will change it's definition to meet your's through posting here, you're more tragic than I thought.

Gary. ^ This ^.

From looking at what you need, you already did a fantastic job explaining why this forum has a *lousy* track record as an incubator for paradigm changing scientific discoveries. What more could you add?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, it is one thing that you spam this thread with intellectual bullshit. But IMHO the links you provide to expose me to videos of bad 80s music should be enough to move all your comments to the bathroom wall.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Sorry, I have vertigo... I'll just watch and then try not to giggle as you pull a North Korea...

I had a feeling you were easily dizzied. But after so well strapping yourself into the ride with J-Dog now waving the lit sparklers for you from underneath the big rocket booster looking thingies, the only way out now, is to hurry up and press the button in your capsule that says MAIN THRUSTERS ON.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, according to the image you posted, you're apparently claiming that intelligent cause comes into play somewhere between the behavior of matter system and the molecular intelligence system. You go from behavioral cause to intelligent cause. What exactly happens at the point where behavioral cause changes to intelligent cause and what causes that change? Also, what, if anything, causes the behavior of matter?

The theory explains "behavior of matter" as:

Quote

Behavior of matter is produced by electromagnetic force created atomic bonds and intermolecular interactions (covalent, polar covalent, van der Waals polar force, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) and follows the “laws of physics”. This is covered by Atomic Theory, which describes the atoms in the model’s particle system environment. Behavior of matter can only respond to exteroceptive stimuli one way, such as bonding with another molecule or not, therefore has two of four requirements for intelligence (but does not by itself qualify as intelligence). It is not possible to rule out intelligence at this behavior level, but with no scientific evidence existing for this the behavior of matter is assumed to not require intelligence to produce intelligence, the origin of intelligent life.

The "behavior" of matter does not need to be "intelligent". When a behavior is intelligent we have "intelligent behavior" which is normally just called "intelligent".

Since the top level "Behavior" of Matter does not qualify as intelligent (but cannot be ruled out) the first causation event is most appropriately "Behavioral Cause" of the Molecular Intelligence. It would be wrong to call it "Intelligent Cause" and "Unintelligent Cause" is incorrect due to not being able to rule that out. Scientific logic here finds only one logical naming convention.

Since Molecular Intelligence does qualify as intelligence, the second causation event is "Intelligent Cause" of Cellular Intelligence. Scientific logic finds only one logical naming convention, to use thereafter.

Because of going from particle-system to molecular intelligence being aBioGenesis just making the first (Behavioral) Cause event happen would be astonishing. You then soon have replicating cells. There would then be a good chance that (technology willing) it can keep going past there to next produce the first Intelligent Cause event, to have cells swimming around. There would then be a great chance it can on its own achieve the next Intelligent Cause event, producing multicellularity.

I need to add: Due to the logic/terminology of a reciprocal causation model like this only fitting together one way, for anyone on any side of the issue, not getting it right leads to an avalanche of illogic that only gets worse with time. As I earlier mentioned with Creation Science, one thing leads to another then the conclusion is that as an intelligence the Creator/God was somehow born knowing nothing at all, the Greek/Roman God system. For scientists who think they have it all figured out already they are soon lost in unscientific territory talking about such things as “intelligent molecules” while I explain the very basics of cognitive science, as it applies to genetics.

The logic fits together in a way that makes there no scientific way out of having to accept the theory and its terminology.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, according to the image you posted, you're apparently claiming that intelligent cause comes into play somewhere between the behavior of matter system and the molecular intelligence system. You go from behavioral cause to intelligent cause. What exactly happens at the point where behavioral cause changes to intelligent cause and what causes that change? Also, what, if anything, causes the behavior of matter?

The theory explains "behavior of matter" as:

Quote

Behavior of matter is produced by electromagnetic force created atomic bonds and intermolecular interactions (covalent, polar covalent, van der Waals polar force, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) and follows the “laws of physics”. This is covered by Atomic Theory, which describes the atoms in the model’s particle system environment. Behavior of matter can only respond to exteroceptive stimuli one way, such as bonding with another molecule or not, therefore has two of four requirements for intelligence (but does not by itself qualify as intelligence). It is not possible to rule out intelligence at this behavior level, but with no scientific evidence existing for this the behavior of matter is assumed to not require intelligence to produce intelligence, the origin of intelligent life.

The "behavior" of matter does not need to be "intelligent". When a behavior is intelligent we have "intelligent behavior" which is normally just called "intelligent".

Since the top level "Behavior" of Matter does not qualify as intelligent (but cannot be ruled out) the first causation event is most appropriately "Behavioral Cause" of the Molecular Intelligence. It would be wrong to call it "Intelligent Cause" and "Unintelligent Cause" is incorrect due to not being able to rule that out. Scientific logic here finds only one logical naming convention.

Since Molecular Intelligence does qualify as intelligence, the second causation event is "Intelligent Cause" of Cellular Intelligence. Scientific logic finds only one logical naming convention, to use thereafter.

Because of going from particle-system to molecular intelligence being aBioGenesis just making the first (Behavioral) Cause event happen would be astonishing. You then soon have replicating cells. There would then be a good chance that (technology willing) it can keep going past there to next produce the first Intelligent Cause event, to have cells swimming around. There would then be a great chance it can on its own achieve the next Intelligent Cause event, producing multicellularity.

I need to add: Due to the logic/terminology of a reciprocal causation model like this only fitting together one way, for anyone on any side of the issue, not getting it right leads to an avalanche of illogic that only gets worse with time. As I earlier mentioned with Creation Science, one thing leads to another then the conclusion is that as an intelligence the Creator/God was somehow born knowing nothing at all, the Greek/Roman God system. For scientists who think they have it all figured out already they are soon lost in unscientific territory talking about such things as “intelligent molecules” while I explain the very basics of cognitive science, as it applies to genetics.

The logic fits together in a way that makes there no scientific way out of having to accept the theory and its terminology.

....erm Gary you are appear to be classically suffering from Hypomania, get help.

Yeah, you guys, "Molecular Intelligence System" doesn't mean the molecules are intelligent. Jeez. It means... uh... intelligence made of molecules... or something.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

What Prof. Zhang is talking about, sure. In Zhang's introductory PowerPoint lecture, he has a graphic showing that the junction of "molecular computing" with "artificial intelligence" yields "molecular intelligence". In other words, artificial intelligence that is achieved using molecular computing techniques.

You, though, are not talking about the same thing as Zhang is when you say "molecular intelligence". What you have going there has a name: equivocation.

What Prof. Zhang is talking about, sure. In Zhang's introductory PowerPoint lecture, he has a graphic showing that the junction of "molecular computing" with "artificial intelligence" yields "molecular intelligence". In other words, artificial intelligence that is achieved using molecular computing techniques.

You, though, are not talking about the same thing as Zhang is when you say "molecular intelligence". What you have going there has a name: equivocation.

This theory is for summing up the cognitive basics (needed to know what “intelligence” at any level is) using a high school simple model where one of four levels is “molecular intelligence” and is where their “molecular intelligence” detail (like self-assembling DNA) is added into this model.

The last link I gave leads to papers on molecular intelligence systems to solve the traveling salesman problem and other things that that are a challenge to completely figure out, for you to feast on this Thanksgiving. Where the code IDeas you get from there must go, is clearly and precisely labeled...

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

What you call "molecular intelligence" is not what Prof. Zhang calls "molecular intelligence".

Can you scrape together enough honesty to acknowledge this?

In this theory there is an algorithm/circuit that defines "molecular intelligence" so of course it's defined another way but that's the way it's supposed to be. We're both talking about the same thing.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary got caught bullshitting and now has Butthurt. You realise the next step is someone will contact Prof. Zhang and he'll have to find a nice way to say "tell this cargo cult science crank to fuck off"?

You are using the same phrase, yes. But you just noted that they have different definitions. "Go" can mean directed movement to a destination, a board game, or even bodily waste excretion. The meanings differ, and the significance to discussion can critically differ.

The scientific concept of Prof. Zhang that he calls "molecular intelligence" is doing artificial intelligence with molecular computing. Saying "It is a scientific concept" when "it" refers to Prof. Zhang's concept is true.

However, that "it" and your conception of "molecular intelligence" are not the same thing. It is not the *same* "it" as your "it". Referencing Prof. Zhang does nothing at all to support your claim that "it", meaning your concept that you call "molecular intelligence", has any scientific basis or validity whatsoever. You have to substantiate that in some other fashion for it to be valid.

But thanks for at least acknowledging that you and Prof. Zhang have defined your concepts in a different way. I see that as a sort of breakthrough moment in your history of discussion with other people.

Gary got caught bullshitting and now has Butthurt. You realise the next step is someone will contact Prof. Zhang and he'll have to find a nice way to say "tell this cargo cult science crank to fuck off"?

Considering how this forum has been ridiculing "molecular intelligence" and didn't even know or care about about their work, I'm the only one here who knew or cared about it.

Over the years I spent enough time familiarizing myself with the resources that are presented there. And as you can see I highly recommend it, theory loves it!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You are using the same phrase, yes. But you just noted that they have different definitions. "Go" can mean directed movement to a destination, a board game, or even bodily waste excretion. The meanings differ, and the significance to discussion can critically differ.

The scientific concept of Prof. Zhang that he calls "molecular intelligence" is doing artificial intelligence with molecular computing. Saying "It is a scientific concept" when "it" refers to Prof. Zhang's concept is true.

However, that "it" and your conception of "molecular intelligence" are not the same thing. It is not the *same* "it" as your "it". Referencing Prof. Zhang does nothing at all to support your claim that "it", meaning your concept that you call "molecular intelligence", has any scientific basis or validity whatsoever. You have to substantiate that in some other fashion for it to be valid.

But thanks for at least acknowledging that you and Prof. Zhang have defined your concepts in a different way. I see that as a sort of breakthrough moment in your history of discussion with other people.

You didn't even know about them until now. And how everyone at the School of Computer Science and Engineering defines it does not matter to a model where there is simply an algorithm/circuit at that intelligence level, not opinion made by my stringing words together.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary got caught bullshitting and now has Butthurt. You realise the next step is someone will contact Prof. Zhang and he'll have to find a nice way to say "tell this cargo cult science crank to fuck off"?

Considering how this forum has been ridiculing "molecular intelligence" and didn't even know or care about about their work, I'm the only one here who knew or cared about it.

Over the years I spent enough time familiarizing myself with the resources that are presented there. And as you can see I highly recommend it, theory loves it!

And that's known as a "red herring" bullshitter Gary. You've been caught equivocating. I bet you just googled the phrase looking for support. You clearly don't understand the work. Whoops.

You are using the same phrase, yes. But you just noted that they have different definitions. "Go" can mean directed movement to a destination, a board game, or even bodily waste excretion. The meanings differ, and the significance to discussion can critically differ.

The scientific concept of Prof. Zhang that he calls "molecular intelligence" is doing artificial intelligence with molecular computing. Saying "It is a scientific concept" when "it" refers to Prof. Zhang's concept is true.

However, that "it" and your conception of "molecular intelligence" are not the same thing. It is not the *same* "it" as your "it". Referencing Prof. Zhang does nothing at all to support your claim that "it", meaning your concept that you call "molecular intelligence", has any scientific basis or validity whatsoever. You have to substantiate that in some other fashion for it to be valid.

But thanks for at least acknowledging that you and Prof. Zhang have defined your concepts in a different way. I see that as a sort of breakthrough moment in your history of discussion with other people.

You didn't even know about them until now. And how everyone at the School of Computer Science and Engineering defines it does not matter to a model where there is simply an algorithm/circuit at that intelligence level, not opinion made by my stringing words together.

I went to your provided link to determine if it actually supported *your* concept.

It didn't.

It supported a *different* concept that is known by the same phrase you use.

You are right that how Prof. Zhang defines "molecular intelligence" does not matter a bit to a different concept called by the same phrase. That is precisely why linking to Prof. Zhang's work does not support your claim that your concept is scientific, because one concept *has nothing to do with the other*.

It doesn't matter one bit that I had no prior familiarity with Prof. Zhang and his work. You should note that I have not complained in past posts about your use of the phrase "molecular intelligence" as a name for your concept. What matters is that you have not and are not supporting the claim you made *about* your concept, which is defined differently from Prof. Zhang's concept.

You are using the same phrase, yes. But you just noted that they have different definitions. "Go" can mean directed movement to a destination, a board game, or even bodily waste excretion. The meanings differ, and the significance to discussion can critically differ.

The scientific concept of Prof. Zhang that he calls "molecular intelligence" is doing artificial intelligence with molecular computing. Saying "It is a scientific concept" when "it" refers to Prof. Zhang's concept is true.

However, that "it" and your conception of "molecular intelligence" are not the same thing. It is not the *same* "it" as your "it". Referencing Prof. Zhang does nothing at all to support your claim that "it", meaning your concept that you call "molecular intelligence", has any scientific basis or validity whatsoever. You have to substantiate that in some other fashion for it to be valid.

But thanks for at least acknowledging that you and Prof. Zhang have defined your concepts in a different way. I see that as a sort of breakthrough moment in your history of discussion with other people.

You didn't even know about them until now. And how everyone at the School of Computer Science and Engineering defines it does not matter to a model where there is simply an algorithm/circuit at that intelligence level, not opinion made by my stringing words together.

I went to your provided link to determine if it actually supported *your* concept.

It didn't.

It supported a *different* concept that is known by the same phrase you use.

You are right that how Prof. Zhang defines "molecular intelligence" does not matter a bit to a different concept called by the same phrase. That is precisely why linking to Prof. Zhang's work does not support your claim that your concept is scientific, because one concept *has nothing to do with the other*.

It doesn't matter one bit that I had no prior familiarity with Prof. Zhang and his work. You should note that I have not complained in past posts about your use of the phrase "molecular intelligence" as a name for your concept. What matters is that you have not and are not supporting the claim you made *about* your concept, which is defined differently from Prof. Zhang's concept.

You sure must be a genius to have in that short amount of time at least a little bit familiarized yourself with all the homework they have for you there.

I have no idea what your operational definition for "scientific concept" is but I'm not surprised you believe it is not one and I'm now stuck in yet another semantics argument with you. Now you need straw-man argument to make it appear that my also easily accounting for what deserves the scientific name "molecular intelligence" is a problem, instead of another indication that this theory is in fact a very good model of reality.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You are using the same phrase, yes. But you just noted that they have different definitions. "Go" can mean directed movement to a destination, a board game, or even bodily waste excretion. The meanings differ, and the significance to discussion can critically differ.

The scientific concept of Prof. Zhang that he calls "molecular intelligence" is doing artificial intelligence with molecular computing. Saying "It is a scientific concept" when "it" refers to Prof. Zhang's concept is true.

However, that "it" and your conception of "molecular intelligence" are not the same thing. It is not the *same* "it" as your "it". Referencing Prof. Zhang does nothing at all to support your claim that "it", meaning your concept that you call "molecular intelligence", has any scientific basis or validity whatsoever. You have to substantiate that in some other fashion for it to be valid.

But thanks for at least acknowledging that you and Prof. Zhang have defined your concepts in a different way. I see that as a sort of breakthrough moment in your history of discussion with other people.

You didn't even know about them until now. And how everyone at the School of Computer Science and Engineering defines it does not matter to a model where there is simply an algorithm/circuit at that intelligence level, not opinion made by my stringing words together.

I went to your provided link to determine if it actually supported *your* concept.

It didn't.

It supported a *different* concept that is known by the same phrase you use.

You are right that how Prof. Zhang defines "molecular intelligence" does not matter a bit to a different concept called by the same phrase. That is precisely why linking to Prof. Zhang's work does not support your claim that your concept is scientific, because one concept *has nothing to do with the other*.

It doesn't matter one bit that I had no prior familiarity with Prof. Zhang and his work. You should note that I have not complained in past posts about your use of the phrase "molecular intelligence" as a name for your concept. What matters is that you have not and are not supporting the claim you made *about* your concept, which is defined differently from Prof. Zhang's concept.

You sure must be a genius to have in that short amount of time at least a little bit familiarized yourself with all the homework they have for you there.

I have no idea what your operational definition for "scientific concept" is but I'm not surprised you believe it is not one and I'm now stuck in yet another semantics argument with you. Now you need straw-man argument to make it appear that my also easily accounting for what deserves the scientific name "molecular intelligence" is a problem, instead of another indication that this theory is in fact a very good model of reality.

I'm sorry Gary, but you are simply dishonest. There is no commonality between the work of Prof. Zhang and your VB script other than the phrase "molecular intelligence" which you both use to mean very different things.

The only strawman is your insistance that they are the same or even remotley related, which they are not.

Dishonest and ignorant of science. You might want to try Uncommon Discent for a more sympathetic audience.

You are using the same phrase, yes. But you just noted that they have different definitions. "Go" can mean directed movement to a destination, a board game, or even bodily waste excretion. The meanings differ, and the significance to discussion can critically differ.

The scientific concept of Prof. Zhang that he calls "molecular intelligence" is doing artificial intelligence with molecular computing. Saying "It is a scientific concept" when "it" refers to Prof. Zhang's concept is true.

However, that "it" and your conception of "molecular intelligence" are not the same thing. It is not the *same* "it" as your "it". Referencing Prof. Zhang does nothing at all to support your claim that "it", meaning your concept that you call "molecular intelligence", has any scientific basis or validity whatsoever. You have to substantiate that in some other fashion for it to be valid.

But thanks for at least acknowledging that you and Prof. Zhang have defined your concepts in a different way. I see that as a sort of breakthrough moment in your history of discussion with other people.

You didn't even know about them until now. And how everyone at the School of Computer Science and Engineering defines it does not matter to a model where there is simply an algorithm/circuit at that intelligence level, not opinion made by my stringing words together.

I went to your provided link to determine if it actually supported *your* concept.

It didn't.

It supported a *different* concept that is known by the same phrase you use.

You are right that how Prof. Zhang defines "molecular intelligence" does not matter a bit to a different concept called by the same phrase. That is precisely why linking to Prof. Zhang's work does not support your claim that your concept is scientific, because one concept *has nothing to do with the other*.

It doesn't matter one bit that I had no prior familiarity with Prof. Zhang and his work. You should note that I have not complained in past posts about your use of the phrase "molecular intelligence" as a name for your concept. What matters is that you have not and are not supporting the claim you made *about* your concept, which is defined differently from Prof. Zhang's concept.

You sure must be a genius to have in that short amount of time at least a little bit familiarized yourself with all the homework they have for you there.

I have no idea what your operational definition for "scientific concept" is but I'm not surprised you believe it is not one and I'm now stuck in yet another semantics argument with you. Now you need straw-man argument to make it appear that my also easily accounting for what deserves the scientific name "molecular intelligence" is a problem, instead of another indication that this theory is in fact a very good model of reality.

I opened Prof. Zhang's first lecture PowerPoint file. Within just a few slides, it introduced his concept of "molecular intelligence". Prof. Zhang is a good communicator; I was able to apprise myself of what he was talking about very quickly, and that he was talking about something different from what you talk about when *you* say, "molecular intelligence".

I'm sorry Gary, but you are simply dishonest. There is no commonality between the work of Prof. Zhang and your VB script other than the phrase "molecular intelligence" which you both use to mean very different things.

Prove it by showing their model which explains "molecular intelligence" in context with "behavior of matter", "cellular intelligence" and "multicellular intelligence" with the algorithm/circuit you are suggesting exists at that site.

You will find none, because they do not write theory to unify such scientific concepts. That's what the Theory of Intelligent Design is for.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I'm sorry Gary, but you are simply dishonest. There is no commonality between the work of Prof. Zhang and your VB script other than the phrase "molecular intelligence" which you both use to mean very different things.

Prove it by showing their model which explains "molecular intelligence" in context with "behavior of matter", "cellular intelligence" and "multicellular intelligence" with the algorithm/circuit you are suggesting exists at that site.

You will find none, because they do not write theory to unify such scientific concepts. That's what the Theory of Intelligent Design is for.

Let me get this straight - *I* have to prove that your model is like his? It isn't. You went fishing for support, linked to something you didn't understand and got caught with your pants down, bullshitter Gary.